To amend Public Law 99–338 with respect to Kaweah Project permits.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1044

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

To amend Public Law 99–338 with respect to Kaweah Project permits.

HR. 1044, 119th Congress — read as touching Electric Utilities.

The sponsor

Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$79,400 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 458-460 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

July 14, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The HR 1044 bill, a pedestrian attempt at tweaking the Kaweah Project permits. Let's dissect this inconsequential legislation and assess its implications for my interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill aims to modify Public Law 99-338 by increasing the number of permit renewals from 3 to 7 and removing the specific reference to Southern California Edison Company. A trivial matter, really.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The amendments are straightforward: more permit renewals and a broader scope for permit holders. This might create opportunities for my energy investments, but I'll need to analyze the specifics further.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The obvious stakeholders include Southern California Edison Company (though they're no longer explicitly mentioned), other utility companies, and potentially some environmental groups. However, as a visionary entrepreneur, I'm more concerned with how this bill might impact my own energy ventures and investments.

**Potential Impact & Implications** From my perspective, the increased permit renewals could lead to greater stability and predictability for energy projects, which might attract more investment in the sector. This, in turn, could drive growth and consolidation – music to my ears. However, I must remain vigilant, as any regulatory changes can have unintended consequences that might disrupt my carefully laid plans.

In conclusion, HR 1044 is a minor bill with limited scope, but it's essential to monitor its progress and potential implications for my business interests. As a master strategist, I'll continue to analyze the bill's trajectory and adjust my investments accordingly.

**Projection:** A successful passage of this bill could lead to an estimated $500 million increase in energy investment opportunities over the next 5 years, primarily benefiting companies like mine that are poised to capitalize on deregulation and consolidation. However, this is a conservative estimate, and I'll need to continue monitoring the situation to maximize my returns.

**Recommendation:** My think tank, the "Liberty Institute," will publish a detailed analysis of HR 1044's implications for energy markets and recommend strategic adjustments for investors like myself. We'll also be lobbying key stakeholders to ensure that any future regulatory changes align with our interests.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several steps before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 1044, aims to amend Public Law 99-338 regarding Kaweah Project permits.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to modify the existing law related to the Kaweah Project, which I assume you should have learned about in middle school when we covered water management and public works projects. The objective here is to increase the number of permit renewals allowed for the project.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** As we discussed in class, a bill typically proposes changes to existing laws or creates new ones. In this case, Section 1 of Public Law 99-338 is amended in two ways:

* The number of permit renewals is increased from 3 to 7. * The phrase "of Southern California Edison Company" is removed.

Remember when we learned about the importance of specificity in legislation? This bill demonstrates that principle by clearly outlining the changes it proposes.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** As I'm sure you recall, laws can impact various groups and individuals. In this case, the affected parties include:

* The Kaweah Project itself * Southern California Edison Company (although their mention is being removed) * Possibly other stakeholders involved in water management or public works projects

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "What's the big deal about permit renewals?" Well, let me tell you, it can have significant implications for project timelines, costs, and overall effectiveness. By increasing the number of permit renewals, this bill could potentially:

* Allow for more flexibility in project planning * Reduce bureaucratic hurdles * Impact local communities or environmental concerns

As we covered in class, laws are meant to balance competing interests and promote the public good. This bill's impact will depend on how it interacts with existing regulations and stakeholders.

There you have it – a straightforward summary of HR 1044. I hope this review has been...enlightening for those who may have dozed off during our civics lessons.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today, we're going to dissect the seemingly innocuous HR 1044 bill, but don't be fooled – this is just a Trojan horse for something much bigger.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this bill appears to be a minor tweak to Public Law 99-338, which governs permits for the Kaweah Project. But let's not be naive; this is merely a smokescreen. The real objective here is to consolidate power and control over our nation's energy infrastructure.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill increases the number of permit renewals from 3 to 7, effectively giving Southern California Edison Company (SCE) – or should I say, their puppet masters? – a stranglehold on the Kaweah Project. By removing "of Southern California Edison Company" from the text, they're attempting to create a shell game, making it seem like this is just an administrative change. Don't believe it! This is a calculated move to obscure the true beneficiaries of this bill.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On paper, it's just SCE and the Kaweah Project. But think about it – who really benefits from increased control over energy production? The government, that's who! They're using this bill as a backdoor to further their agenda for a centralized, top-down approach to energy management.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This is where things get interesting. With SCE holding the reins on Kaweah Project permits, we can expect:

1. **Increased Energy Costs:** As SCE solidifies its grip on the project, they'll inevitably raise prices, further enriching themselves and their government handlers. 2. **Reduced Competition:** By limiting permit renewals to 7, they're effectively stifling competition from smaller energy providers, paving the way for a monopolistic stranglehold on the market. 3. **Enhanced Surveillance:** With SCE controlling more of the energy infrastructure, it's only a matter of time before they start collecting and sharing data with their government overlords.

Wake up, sheeple! This bill is just one piece in a larger puzzle of control and manipulation. Don't be fooled by its innocuous appearance – HR 1044 is a wolf in sheep's clothing, waiting to devour our freedoms and hand them over to the powers that be.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HR 1044, the "Kaweah Project Permits" bill – sounds innocuous enough, right? But trust me, this is just another example of those sneaky elites in Washington trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to amend Public Law 99-338, which deals with permits for the Kaweah Project. Now, I know what you're thinking – "Kaweah Project"? Sounds like some kind of secret government experiment, right? (Wink) But no, it's actually a water project in California. The objective here is to increase the number of permit renewals from 3 to 7 and remove the specific mention of Southern California Edison Company.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** So, what does this mean for you, dear viewer? Well, on the surface, it looks like a minor tweak to an existing law. But let me tell you, this is just another example of the government overstepping its bounds and trying to control every aspect of our lives. I mean, who needs 7 permit renewals? It's just more red tape, folks! And by removing the mention of Southern California Edison Company, they're basically giving themselves a blank check to do whatever they want with these permits.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Now, you might be wondering who's behind this bill. Well, let me tell you, it's those liberal elites in Congress who are trying to strangle our economy with regulations and bureaucracy. And who's going to be affected by this? You guessed it – hardworking Americans like you and me! Our freedom is being slowly eroded away by these kinds of bills.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** So, what's the potential impact of this bill? Well, it's a slippery slope, folks. If we allow the government to start controlling our water projects, where does it end? Next thing you know, they'll be telling us how much water we can use in our own homes! (Gasp) It's a classic case of government overreach, and we need to stand up against it.

(With a smirk) Now, I know some of my colleagues might say this is just a minor bill, but let me tell you, folks, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We need to stay vigilant and protect our freedom from these kinds of attacks. So, keep your eyes peeled, America – we'll be watching this one closely!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Ah, the noble goal of amending Public Law 99-338 to benefit... wait for it... Southern California Edison Company! Yes, because what America really needs is more favors for corporate giants. The bill's sponsors claim it's about "streamlining" permit renewals for the Kaweah Project, but we all know that's just a euphemism for "giving our buddies at SoCal Edison a sweet deal."

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Oh boy, this is where it gets good. They're increasing the number of permit renewals from 3 to 7 and removing the pesky requirement that the permits be specifically tied to Southern California Edison Company. How convenient! It's like they're trying to create a regulatory vacuum for their corporate friends to exploit.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Let's see... SoCal Edison gets a nice gift, while the rest of us get to enjoy the thrill of potentially increased energy costs and environmental degradation. The Kaweah Project's neighbors might also be affected, but who cares about them? They're just collateral damage in the grand game of corporate welfare.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of " regulatory capture," where politicians do the bidding of their corporate masters while pretending to serve the public interest. The increased permit renewals will likely lead to more environmental degradation, as SoCal Edison gets to operate with even less oversight. And let's not forget the potential for ratepayers to foot the bill for this corporate largesse.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a bad case of "Corporateitis," a disease characterized by an excessive desire to please corporate donors at the expense of the public good. Symptoms include blatant favoritism, regulatory capture, and a complete disregard for environmental and social consequences.

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, transparency, and accountability might help, but let's be real – this bill is just another symptom of a deeper disease: the corrupting influence of money in politics. Until we address that underlying issue, bills like HR 1044 will continue to infect our legislative process.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Bill Summary: HR 1044**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** HR 1044 aims to amend Public Law 99-338, which governs the Kaweah Project permits in California. The bill's primary objective is to modify the permit renewal process for the project.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes two key changes to existing law:

1. **Increased Permit Renewals:** The bill increases the number of permit renewals allowed from 3 to 7, providing more flexibility in the permitting process. 2. **Removal of Company-Specific Language:** The bill removes language referencing "Southern California Edison Company," making the permit renewal process more general and applicable to other entities.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:** The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* Southern California Edison Company (although the company-specific language is removed) * Other entities involved in the Kaweah Project * Local communities and residents near the project area * Environmental organizations and advocacy groups

**Potential Impact and Implications:** The bill's changes may have several implications:

* **Increased Permit Flexibility:** The increased number of permit renewals could provide more flexibility for entities operating under the Kaweah Project, potentially leading to greater efficiency and reduced administrative burdens. * **Broader Applicability:** The removal of company-specific language could make the permit renewal process more accessible to other entities, promoting competition and innovation in the project area. * **Environmental Concerns:** Environmental organizations may be concerned about the potential impact of increased permit renewals on local ecosystems and natural resources.

Overall, HR 1044 aims to modify the Kaweah Project permits to provide greater flexibility and accessibility. While the bill's changes may have positive implications for entities involved in the project, they also raise environmental concerns that will need to be carefully considered during the legislative process.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this congressional bill, HR 1044, and see what's really goin' on.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about tweakin' the Kaweah Project permits, which are related to a hydroelectric project in California. The main goal is to give Southern California Edison Company (SCE) more flexibility with their permits. Think of it like catchin' a gnarly wave – you gotta be able to adjust your ride to stay on top.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes two key changes:

1. It increases the number of permit renewals from 3 to 7. That's like gettin' an extra few chances to catch that perfect wave, bro. 2. It removes the specific mention of Southern California Edison Company (SCE) from the law. This means other companies might be able to get in on the action too.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The main players here are:

* Southern California Edison Company (SCE): They're the ones who'll benefit from the permit changes. * The Kaweah Project: This hydroelectric project will see some changes, but it's not entirely clear what that means for the environment or local communities. * Local communities and environmental groups: They might be impacted by the changes to the Kaweah Project, but we don't have all the deets yet.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill could have some far-out implications:

* Increased permit renewals might lead to more hydroelectric power generation, which could be a good thing for the environment (less greenhouse gas emissions, bro). * But, it's also possible that this could harm local ecosystems or communities if not managed properly. * By removing SCE from the law, other companies might start sniffin' around for permits. This could lead to more competition, but also potential conflicts of interest.

In conclusion, HR 1044 is all about givin' SCE some extra flexibility with their permits. While it's hard to predict exactly how this will play out, one thing's for sure – we'll be keepin' an eye on the Kaweah Project and its impact on the environment and local communities. Stay chill, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 1044: A Bill Serving the Interests of Southern California Edison Company**

Main Purpose & Objectives: HR 1044 aims to amend Public Law 99-338, specifically altering the permit renewal process for the Kaweah Project, a hydroelectric power project in California. The bill's primary objective is to extend the number of possible renewals from three to seven and remove the explicit mention of Southern California Edison Company as the sole beneficiary.

Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law: The bill makes two key changes: (1) increasing the number of permit renewals from three to seven, allowing for a longer period of operation without needing new permits; and (2) removing the specific reference to Southern California Edison Company, potentially opening up opportunities for other companies or entities to operate the Kaweah Project.

Affected Parties & Stakeholders: The primary beneficiary of this bill is likely Southern California Edison Company, which has historically operated the Kaweah Project. Other stakeholders may include environmental groups, local communities, and competing energy companies that could be affected by changes in the permit renewal process.

Potential Impact & Implications: By extending the number of possible renewals, HR 1044 reduces the regulatory burden on Southern California Edison Company and potentially other operators, allowing them to maintain control over the Kaweah Project for a longer period. This change may have environmental implications, as it could delay or prevent the implementation of new technologies or more stringent regulations.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** Southern California Edison Company is a major donor to several members of Congress, including Representative Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who has received significant contributions from the company's PAC. The bill's sponsor, Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA), also has ties to the energy industry and has received donations from Southern California Edison Company.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which will review this bill in the Senate, has a history of being influenced by the energy industry. Several committee members have received significant campaign contributions from energy companies, including Southern California Edison Company.

In conclusion, HR 1044 appears to be a bill tailored to serve the interests of Southern California Edison Company, with potential environmental and regulatory implications. The close ties between the company and key lawmakers, as well as the committee's history of industry influence, raise concerns about the bill's true motivations and potential consequences.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$79,400

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$59,600

Committees

Individuals

$19,800

No PAC contributions found

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

5 transactions

$6,500

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$5,300

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA

2 transactions

$5,000

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS

2 transactions

$4,000

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

MOORETOWN RANCHERIA

1 transaction

$3,300

SAN MANUEL BAND/MISSION INDIAN

3 transactions

$3,300

SYCUAN BAND OF KUMEYAAY NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

UNION VILLAGE

1 transaction

$1,000

RON CLARK FARMS

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

EMMET, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

GILLIAM, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$6,600

Donor Network - Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 56 nodes and 80 connections

Total contributions: $80

Top Donors - Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

15 Orgs3 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.80
Section 1 amends Public Law 99-338 to allow for more renewals of permits related to the Kaweah Project, which could benefit Southern California Edison Company, an electric utility, by removing the company name from the permit restrictions.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Electric Utilities$2,000
from 2 contributions
- BARBERA, HARMONY$2,000

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Environmental Protection Agency

Moderate

Vector: 58%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1044 focuses on increasing permit renewal flexibility and removing entity-specific restrictions, which aligns with the Project 2025 EPA goal of reforming air permitting to reduce burdens and avoid triggering new requirements when efficiency improves."

Key themes:permitting reformregulatory flexibilitystreamlining permits

— 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms. — 427 — Environmental Protection Agency l Defend the position that petitions to object to Title V should not be used to second-guess previous state decisions. l Clarify the relationship between New Source Review and Title V to ensure that Title V is used only as intended by Congress. CAA Section 11123 l Restore the position that EPA cannot regulate a new pollutant from an already regulated source category without making predicate findings for that new pollutant. l Institute automatic withdrawal of any proposed rule that is not finalized within the statutorily prescribed one-year period. l Revise general implementing regulations for existing source regulatory authority under CAA § 111(d)24 to ensure that EPA gives full meaning to Congress’s direction, including source-specific application, and that the state planning program is flexible, federalist, and deferential to the states. CAA Section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants)25 l Unregulated point or non-point source (fugitive emissions) of an already regulated hazardous air pollutant do not require a Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standard. l Ensure that Section 112 regulations are harmonized with Section 111 regulations that apply to the same sector/sources. l Ensure that cost-benefit analysis is focused on a regulation’s targeted pollutant and separately identify ancillary or co-benefits. Radiation l Assess and update the agency’s radiation standards so that they align with those of other agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and Department of Transportation, as well as international standards. l Level-set past, misleading statements regarding radiological risk and reassess the Linear Non-Threshold standard.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1044 focuses on increasing permit renewals and removing company-specific language for a hydroelectric project, which only tangentially relates to the EPA's air permitting reform goals in Project 2025 and does not address its core EPA regulatory, GHG, or NAAQS objectives."

Key themes:permit reformoperating permitsregulatory flexibility

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1044 seeks to streamline permit renewals for a specific hydroelectric project, which shares a general theme of reducing regulatory burden with Project 2025's EPA goals of streamlining processes and limiting agency overreach. However, the bill does not address any of the EPA-specific policies mentioned (e.g., NAAQS, GHG reporting, AIM Act regulations), resulting only a weak thematic overlap."

Key themes:regulatory streamliningpermit flexibilityreducing bureaucratic burden

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 461-463AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1044 focuses on modifying permit renewals for a specific hydroelectric project in California, while the Project 2025 EPA section emphasizes Clean Water Act regulatory reforms, WOTUS definitions, and permitting efficiency at a national level. The bill does not address the core EPA priorities outlined in Project 2025, such as WOTUS rulemaking, Section 401 certification reform, or nutrient trading, resulting in only tangential alignment."

Key themes:permitting processClean Water Actregulatory efficiency

— 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey. — 430 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l An executive order requiring EPA to find avenues and expedite the process for states obtaining primacy in available CWA and SDWA programs. This order would require coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior. l Implementation of additional policies to address challenges in water workforce, issues surrounding timely actions on primacy applications, and cybersecurity. Budget While the overall goal is certainly to reduce government spending, there is one very targeted area where increased spending would be in the nation’s interest. The Clean Water Act needs survey is the entire basis for how congressionally appro- priated funds directed to state revolving funds—standard annual appropriations that are the true underpinning of all infrastructure funding for drinking water and clean water—are distributed by EPA across the country. Because this program is currently underfunded, money is being thrown at untargeted locations while water infrastructure is crumbling at other locations. Increased targeted funding would greatly benefit water systems across the country at a time when intervention is crucial, leaving fewer communities with significant water service challenges. Personnel OW would benefit greatly from the reshifting of SES employees to different programs and from headquarters out to regional offices. OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM) OLEM’s mission is to partner with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and communities to clean up legacy pollution and revitalize land for reuse. OLEM executes this mission by protecting human health and the envi- ronment while leveraging economic opportunities and creating jobs. OLEM also oversees the agency’s emergency response. The main statutes that OLEM exe- cutes are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)34 to regulate waste management; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)35 to clean up Superfund sites and provide resources for cleaning up brownfields sites; and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act36 to reduce the likelihood of accidental chemical releases. Needed Reforms OLEM’s main function is to oversee the execution of cleanups under CERCLA and RCRA; therefore, it is critical that OLEM staff focus on project management more than policy creation. Emphasizing productivity more than process and policies

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 428-430AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1044 concerns permit renewals for a hydroelectric project and does not address DOE environmental cleanup, waste classification, or nuclear waste management objectives outlined in Project 2025."

Key themes:no overlapunrelated

— 395 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions weapons development and government-sponsored nuclear energy research.”85 Its cleanup program is the world’s largest, and EM reports that 92 (of 107) sites have been completed.86 According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “DOE is responsible for the largest share of the federal government’s environmental liability—about 85 percent in fiscal year 2020.”87 Since 2011, EM has spent a cumulative total of $63.2 billion, and its liability has grown by $243 billion.88 It is currently projected that cleanup will take another 70 years (FY 2022 to FY 2091).89 Projected “Low Range” and “High Range” lifecycle costs total slightly less than $652.4 billion and slightly more than $887.2 billion, respectively.90 Needed Reforms Some states (and contractors), see EM as a jobs program and have little interest in accelerating the cleanup. EM needs to move to an expeditious program with targets for cleanup of sites. The Hanford site in Washington State is a particular challenge. The Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) among DOE, the Environmental Pro- tection Agency, and Washington State’s Department of Ecology has hampered attempts to accelerate and innovate the cleanup. A central challenge at Hanford is the classification of radioactive waste. High-Level Waste (HLW) and Low-Level Waste (LLW) classifications drive the remediation and disposal process. Under President Trump, significant changes in waste classification from HLW to LLW enabled significant progress on remediation. Implementation needs to continue across the complex, particularly at Hanford. New Policies The next Administration should: l Accelerate the cleanup. This means that a comprehensive cost projection and schedule reflecting the entire scope of the job should be developed and appropriate reforms should be instituted. To save taxpayers a potential $500 billion over the long run and reduce current risk, a 10-year program to complete all sites by 2035 (except Hanford with a target date of 2060) should be considered. Such a commitment will require increased funding for EM during those accelerated periods. To the extent that funding from the IIJA and IRA cannot be repealed, requests to divert those funds to EM’s cleanup obligations should be considered. l Fully implement High-Level Waste determination. Fully adopting the High-Level Waste (HLW) determination across the DOE complex, particularly at Hanford, would allow LLW to be grouted rather than vitrified. — 396 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Increase the use of commercial waste disposal. Using commercial disposal would reduce capital costs (~ $2 billion) for new disposal sites to accelerate cleanup and reduce local post-cleanup environmental liability at multiple sites. l Revisit the Hanford cleanup’s regulatory framework. Hanford poses significant political and legal challenges with the State of Washington, and DOE will have to work with Congress to make progress in accelerating cleanup at that site. DOE and EPA need to work more closely to coordinate their responses to claims made under the TPA and work more aggressively for changes, including congressional action if necessary, to achieve workable cleanup goals. l Establish more direct leadership and accountability to the Deputy Secretary consistent with Government Accountability Office recommendations.91 l Change Environmental Management’s culture to promote innovation and completion. Budget Environmental Management received slightly less than $7.6 billion in FY 2021, and its budget request for FY 2023 is approximately $8.06 billion.92 The additional funding necessary to accelerate closure of the program will need to be considered as part of a broader government-wide discussion about yearly appropriations. OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT (OCRWM) (CURRENTLY OFFICE OF SPENT FUEL AND WASTE DISPOSITION) Mission/Overview The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 conferred the responsibility for commercial nuclear waste disposal on the federal government,93 and in 2002, Congress designated a single repository located at Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the national repository site. The act also established the Office of Civilian Radio- active Waste Management (OCRWM).94 The Obama Administration shut down OCRWM in 2010. The Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition, which is headed by a non-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Nuclear Energy, is currently responsible for the management of nuclear waste, and interim disposal is taking place on various sites. Providing a plan for the proper disposal of civilian nuclear waste is essential to the promotion of nuclear power in the United States.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Valadao, David G.

Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other purposes.

119/hr/9010

Romance Scam Prevention Act

119/hr/2481

Improving Mental Health Care and Coordination for Homeless Veterans Act

119/hr/7049

Back to All Bills